>>96000692>There's no proof they add anything eitherThey add what everyone else adds, are you expecting special tranny superpowers or something?
> they cost more than the average soldierProve it. Because most don't get their medication through the military.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9900/RB9909/RAND_RB9909.pdf>Many types of medical treatments can lead to lost labor and leave personnel temporarily unable to deploy. Given the small estimated number of
transgender personnel and the even smaller number who would seek gender
transition–related treatment in a given year, the study found that the readiness
impact of transition-related treatment would lead to a loss of less than
0.0015 percent of total available labor-years in the active component. Even
using the highest estimates, less than 0.1 percent of the force would seek gender
transition–related treatment that would affect their ability to deploy. As a point
of comparison, in the Army alone, approximately 50,000 active-component
personnel were ineligible to deploy in 2015 for various legal, medical, or
administrative reasons—a number amounting to around 14 percent of the
active component.
It also shows the result of transgender troops in other nations, which did NOT result in any of the things you're talking about. Even in the hypothetical case of the US military paying for every single bit of a transgender's transition- which would not be the case when most of them enlist after they've fully transistioned- it would still take up less than a fraction of a single percent of the military budget.
